lesson plan: freedom of religion - california courts · lesson plan: freedom of religion . context...

Curricula for K-12 Civics Education

CVCS-Lesson-Brown.a-docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Lesson Plan: Freedom of Religion

Context of the lesson within the unit: This is the third lesson of twelve in a year-long unit exploring the history of the US Constitution in 11th grade US History. This lesson on religion is an in-depth exploration of the free exercise and establishment clauses of the first amendment. This lesson was taught during the first curricular unit which focuses on the foundation of US History (colonization to Civil War). Standards Addressed: History Social Science 11.3 Students analyze the role religion played in the founding of America, its lasting moral, social, and political impacts, and issues regarding religious liberty. 5. Describe the principles of religious liberty found in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, including the debate on the issue of separation of church and state. Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Grades 11-12 Students. Key Ideas and Details: 1. Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to

important distinctions the author makes and to any gaps or inconsistencies in the account. 2. Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; summarize complex concepts, processes,

or information presented in a text by paraphrasing them in simpler but still accurate terms. 3. Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best

accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain.

Integration of Knowledge and Ideas: 7. Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical text, verifying

the data when possible and corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information.


CVCS-Lesson-Brown.a-docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Objective(s): 1. Students understand the difference between the establishment and free exercise clause of the

first amendment. 2. Students explore landmark Supreme Court cases regarding Freedom of Religion. 3. Students will demonstrate their understanding of expression and exercise through application

on sample cases. 4. Students will demonstrate their understanding of religious liberty by writing an amicus curiae

brief to the US Supreme Court in the case of Elk Grove School District v. Newdow.


CVCS-Lesson-Brown.b-docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Lesson Plan: Freedom of Religion Essential Questions/Issues: • Why are the constitutional protections to Freedom of Religion essential to our

democracy? • How can citizens ensure their religious liberty is protected?

Higher Order Thinking Questions: 1. Evaluate recent Supreme Court decisions regarding religion. Do you agree or

disagree with the court’s findings? (Evaluate) 2. Is reciting the pledge of allegiance a violation of a person’s religious liberty?

(Application)


CVCS-Lesson-Brown.c.docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Lesson Plan: Freedom of Religion Assessment: Students will be evaluated through informal checks for understanding, teacher observation, and written performance on the amicus curiae brief. GRASPS: Goal Your goal is write a brief to the US Supreme Court to convince them that

the reciting the pledge at school is either a violation or not a violation of a student’s first amendment’s rights.

Role You are an attorney with the Religious Liberty Foundation. You have been asked to represent the foundation and file a brief with Supreme Court in the case of Elk Grove School District v. Newdow.

Audience The justices of the US Supreme Court.

Situation The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the case Elk Grove School District v. Newdow. They have asked for briefs to be submitted on the matter from individuals and organizations. The Religious Liberty Foundation has asked you to represent the Foundation and file a brief on their behalf. You must research the case and precedent Supreme Court cases on religious liberty. Based on the research conducted, you must determine whether the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance may be a violation of a student’s right to freedom of religion as protected in the first amendment.

Performance You will prepare a written brief to the court to articulate your position on the matter.

Standard for Success

You must clearly demonstrate your understanding of the first amendment in your arguments and knowledge of precedent cases.


CVCS-Lesson-Brown.c.docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Quality Criteria:

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Idea Development

Takes a strong, well defined position; uses at least three supporting ideas with relevant evidence.

Takes a clear position; uses at least three supporting ideas with evidence.

Position is not clearly stated; development is brief with little evidence to support.

No position taken; undeveloped reasons and no evidence provided.

Organization Demonstrates logical sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs; transitions used; gripping introduction and strong conclusion.

Well-developed paragraphs; introduction and conclusion developed.

Organization to writing, but ideas not fully developed; introduction and conclusion present but not fully developed.

No paragraph structure; no introduction or conclusion; illogical organization of ideas.

Mechanics and Language Usage

Few errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and usage. Use of rich vocabulary and varied sentence structure.

Few errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and usage. Occasional use of rich vocabulary and sentence variety.

Errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and usage; repetitious vocabulary; simple sentence structure.

Multiple errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and usage; weak vocabulary; simple sentence structure.

Presentation Typed and presented according to guidelines.

Paper is legible, but may not be typed, and is presented according to formatting guidelines.

Paper is legible but not typed and may not include appropriate formatting.

Difficult to read and not written in appropriate format.


CVCS-Lesson-Brown-d.docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Lesson Plan: Freedom of Religion Activity Steps: Purpose Teacher Students Hook (20 Minutes)

Teacher asks students following questions one at a time. 1. Why aren’t students allowed

to bring weapons to school? 2. Are there ever times when

students should be allowed to carry weapons?

3. Could prohibiting weapons in school ever be a violation of someone’s rights?

Teacher asks students to respond to questions on paper and then discuss with a partner. Teacher calls on students to answer and takes a quick survey (thumbs up/down) on questions #2 and #3.

Teacher passes out “Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Concerning Rights of Baptized Sikh Students to Wear Symbolic Ceremonial Knives to School Thursday, June 12, 1997”

Teacher asks students to think about and respond to the following questions:

Students respond to questions on their paper and when called on by teacher.

Students read “Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Concerning Rights of Baptized Sikh Students to Wear Symbolic Ceremonial Knives to School Thursday, June 12, 1997”.

Students write their responses to the question.



• Did the extending of religious

freedom to Sikh children deny others their rights? Why or why not?

• Was our democracy strengthened or weakened by this decision?

Through (60 Minutes)

Teacher will ask the students what rights are protected in the first amendment. Teacher will review the first amendment protections (speech, assembly, press, petition and religion). Teacher will review the historical context of the Freedom of Religion from colonization to the beliefs of the founding fathers (Madison, Jefferson, and Henry.) Teacher asks students if debate on religious freedom still relevant today. Teacher asks students to consider the following questions: • What rights do parents have

when making medical decisions for their children?

• Should a parent be prosecuted if they deny medical treatment to their children?

• What if a procedure was medically unnecessary, yet the

Students will answer “what rights do citizens have under the first amendment?” Students take notes on historical context. Students respond to questions and think, pair, and share with neighbor.



parents performed procedure for religious purposes?

Teacher passes out “San Francisco's Circumcision Ban: An Attack on Religious Freedom?”

Teacher surveys class (thumbs up/down or through online polling system) on the following question: • Is San Francisco’s proposed

ban on circumcision a violation of the first amendment?

Teacher reviews the two clauses of freedom of religion: Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Free Exercise Clause: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Teacher asks students • Are both clauses necessary to

the protection of American democracy?

Teacher provides example of violations of each clause: establishment clause – teacher leads prayer during class time; exercise clause – students banned from praying at school.

Students read article. Students respond to question. Students respond to question



Teacher passes out “You Be The Judge” and assigns the students to work in groups of 3-4 to complete. Teacher walks around assisting students as they complete the matrix. Teacher calls on groups share their responses for each case and teacher reveals the “answers” based on the Supreme Court decisions.

Students work in small groups to discuss each case and complete the matrix. Student groups share their responses and discuss whether the Supreme Court got it “right.”

Beyond (20 Minutes

Teacher passes out last case, “To Pledge, or Not To Pledge.” Students are asked to read the case. Teacher explains that they are going to be acting as attorneys for the Religious Liberty Foundation. It is an organization established to ensure that our religious freedoms are protected. They have been asked to represent the Foundation and write an amicus curiae brief to the US Supreme Court who has just agreed to hear this case. Teacher explains that an amicus curiae brief is written by a person

Students read and annotate case as they read.



or an organization that is not directly affiliated with a case but has an interest in the case. The brief is intended to convince the court to rule in favor of one party or the other. The students will research the case and prepare a written response to the question: • Does the reciting the pledge of

allegiance, which includes the words “under God,” in school violate a student’s first amendment rights?

The teacher explains that if they answer yes they will be writing their brief on support of the respondent, Michael Newdow. If they do not believe it is a violation, they will write their brief in support of the petitioner, Elk Grove School District. Teacher passes out guidelines for preparing brief and reviews with students.



Special Needs of students are considered in this lesson: • Students with special needs are considered by assigning students to work with

heterogeneous groups. The online polling is another strategy as it is anonymous. • The written assignment can be modified to meet each student’s needs, both in

length and format. • GATE students can be required to research and include prior Supreme Court rulings

to cite in their brief as precedents.

Extension Ideas: Have students research current religious freedom cases.

Have students prepare a guide for school administrators on protecting students’ freedom of religion while at school.


CVCS-Lesson-Brown.e.docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Lesson Plan: Freedom of Religion Materials and Resources: PowerPoint Presentation: Freedom of Religion Copies of:

• Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Concerning Rights of Baptized Sikh Students to Wear Symbolic Ceremonial Knives to School Thursday, June 12, 1997

• San Francisco's Circumcision Ban: An Attack on Religious Freedom? • To Pledge or Not To Pledge... • Freedom of Religion Matrix • Amicus Brief Directions References: California Department of Education Content Standards for Social Studies The Bill of Rights Institute: Landmark Supreme Court Rulings – The Establishment Clause

(http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=471) The Bill of Rights Institute: Landmark Supreme Court Rulings – The Free Exercise Clause

(http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=479) Youth Leadership Institute – First Amendment Religious Freedom Lesson Plan

(http://www.youthleadership.net) Teacher’s Curriculum Institute – Rights of the Accused Activity (Amicus Brief Format)

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=471

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=479

http://www.youthleadership.net/


CVCS-Lesson-Brown.f.docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Lesson Plan: Freedom of Religion

Student Handouts:

Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Concerning Rights of Baptized Sikh Students to Wear Symbolic Ceremonial Knives to School

Thursday, June 12, 1997

SAN FRANCISCO -- The Livingston Union School District and the ACLU of Northern California announced today that they have resolved a lawsuit concerning the rights of baptized Sikh students to wear symbolic ceremonial knives -- known as kirpans -- to school.

The parties described the settlement -- which will allow the students to wear the kirpans subject to strict limitations on size and other restrictions designed to assure that they cannot be misused -- as an agreement intended to promote the two important goals of religious freedom and school security.

Stephen V. Bomse of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, a cooperating attorney for the ACLU, who, with ACLU staff attorney Margaret Crosby, represented the plaintiffs, said: "This is an important achievement for religious liberty, but it is an achievement that does not come at the cost of safety in our schools."

Henry Escobar, Superintendent of the Livingston Union School District, said: "We are pleased to have reached a resolution among all parties. Our primary concern at all times has been the safety issues. We have always been and continue to be respectful of the Sikhs' religious beliefs. We are happy we have been able to accommodate their religious needs without jeopardizing the safety of our students, faculty or staff."

The Cheema children have been attending school with their Kirpans pursuant to an order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 1994. The court's order allowed the children to wear their kirpans to school pending a full trial on the School District's claim that kirpans pose an unacceptable danger to school safety.



Settlement was reached when the parties were able to agree upon terms that, they believe, adequately insure student safety without compromising the Sikh students' religious beliefs.

Under the agreement, the kirpan blade must be no longer than 2.5 inches. It must also be dulled and sewn securely into a sheath and further secured in a cloth pouch which the Sikh community in Livingstone designed to accommodate the District's concerns over safety. The parties further agreed to give the District limited inspection rights to be sure that the restrictions are being followed.

The settlement was approved by the Livingstone Union School Board at its June 10, 1997 meeting.

Monday, Jun. 13, 2011

San Francisco's Circumcision Ban: An Attack on Religious Freedom?

By Adam Cohen

In the 1960s and '70s, the San Francisco Bay Area was where the counterculture really started — the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, the Summer of Love in Haight-Ashbury, gay rights in the Castro. Today, the Bay Area is challenging the larger culture in a new and controversial way: there will be a referendum on the ballot in November that would make it the first major city in the U.S. to outlaw circumcision.

The San Francisco debate over circumcision initially centered on the value of the procedure itself — opponents call it barbaric, supporters point to its long tradition and say it prevents disease. But increasingly the debate is becoming one about religion, in which critics accuse backers of the referendum of bigotry and insist a ban would violate the First Amendment's religious freedoms.

There is plenty of reason to oppose the ban on its own merits. There is no need for a law: if people do not believe in circumcision, they should not have it done to themselves or their children. And even if there were to be a circumcision ban, this one is poorly constructed because of the well-founded religious objections that are being raised.



The anti-circumcision debate began in April when a group of self-proclaimed "intactivists" — people who believe strongly that infant boys have a right to keep their foreskins intact — submitted enough signatures to put a circumcision ban on the ballot. The intactivists have taken up the language of international human rights: they are fighting, they say, for "genital autonomy" and "male-genital-integrity rights." Framed this way, it seemed like an appropriately earnest next step for a city that last year banned any kind of Happy Meal that paired toy giveaways with fast food.

The intactivists argue that circumcision needlessly inflicts pain on newborns, and they compare it to female genital mutilation — which is, in fact, a far more serious procedure. (Female genital mutilation can produce severe harm, including infertility and an increased risk of newborn deaths.)

Supporters of circumcision argue that there is a long tradition behind it, both religious and nonreligious, and that the pain involved is fleeting. They also say circumcision has proven health benefits. Removal of the foreskin has been found to help prevent the spread of HIV and other infections. In clinical trials in Africa, the incidence of HIV infection was 60% lower in circumcised men. The World Health Organization has said circumcision is an important component in fighting HIV infection.

Still, the drafters of the San Francisco referendum could have avoided the religious issue — and kept the focus on the harms and benefits of circumcision — if they had included an exception for circumcisions done for religious reasons. Jews, whose religious traditions require male children to be circumcised eight days after birth, and Muslims, who also practice circumcision, are a small part of the city's population.

Instead, the referendum expressly states that the ban would apply equally to religious circumcisions. If it passes, Jewish parents in San Francisco who hold a traditional bris, or circumcision ritual, could be sentenced to a year in jail.

This strict policy certainly seems insensitive. Jews who circumcise their sons trace the tradition back thousands of years. It is a sign, they believe, of a covenant with God, and an affirmation that the Jewish people will survive. There are accounts of circumcisions



performed in the direst of circumstances, including in concentration camps. The intactivists aren't swayed by such arguments and insist it's gone on long enough.

Cohen, a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board, is a lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Monday.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.htm

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.htm



Saturday, Jun. 29, 2002

To Pledge or Not To Pledge...

By Nadya Labi

For a hysterical moment, Alfred Goodwin replaced Osama Bin Laden as the most reviled man in America. The federal judge’s crime was to attack two of the 31 words that constitute the Pledge of Allegiance. Writing for the majority of a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine western states including California, Goodwin held last week that the words under God were unconstitutional because they violated the separation of church and state required by the First Amendment. He was responding to a case brought by Sacramento, Calif. emergency-room physician Michael Newdow, an atheist who argued that his daughter’s rights were infringed when the phrase was included in the pledge at her school each morning. Goodwin reasoned that saying, "we are a nation under God" is equivalent to saying "we are a nation under Jesus, a nation under Vishnu, a nation under Zeus or a nation under no god."

That’s when all hell broke loose. Newspapers and TV reports were filled with denunciations by average citizens and political commentators alike. In a display of bipartisanship not witnessed since the days immediately following Sept. 11, politicians from both parties called the decision "ridiculous," "unbelievable," "nuts." The Senate quickly passed a 99-0 bill endorsing the unexpurgated pledge. The House condemned the decision by a 416-3 vote. Perhaps deciding that retreat is the better part of valor, Goodwin stayed his decision even before an appeal was filed. The case is virtually certain to be heard by an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit and virtually certain to be overturned either then or later by the Supreme Court.

Lost amidst all the flag-waving and God-avowing furor was the fact that Goodwin may have had a point. "As a matter of common sense, a court should struggle not to reach this result," says Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. "But the reasoning isn’t crazy. It’s technically correct." Vincent Blasi, a law professor at Columbia University and



the University of Virginia, agreed. "If you’re being true to the idea that government must not take positions on religious questions, then the Ninth Circuit opinion is quite persuasive," he says. "There is a powerful desire by majorities to assert a religious identity for the country." That desire was strengthened by the terrorist attacks, as schools across the nation turned more openly to prayer for solace.

Goodwin was a victim of bad timing. The pledge, written by a socialist clergyman in 1892, has often served as a rallying cry in times of national crisis. During World War II, Congress officially recognized the pledge and changed its accompanying salute from an outstretched arm that resembled Hitler’s favored salute to the current right hand over the heart. In 1954, in the midst of the cold war against godless communism, President Eisenhower urged Congress to add the words under God to the oath to reaffirm "the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future." Now faced with a war of uncertain definition and length, the country has once again embraced the pledge as a talisman against harm.

But even in times of peace, Americans have grown accustomed to invoking God’s name in everything from the motto on their currency ("In God we trust") to the saying at the start of every Supreme Court session ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"). Yet while the word God has become omnipresent in the nation’s ceremonial language, it should be noted that when the Founding Fathers were crafting the Constitution, the blueprint for a bold new nation, they left it out.

With reporting by Sean Scully/Los Angeles

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,267701,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,267701,00.html



Case Free Exercise or Establishment

Judgment – Is it Constitutional?

Explanation of Judgment

State law that banned the teaching of evolution

American Indian worker fired for smoking peyote

Student religious organization at a public university limited membership to those with similar beliefs and consequently refused to allow a homosexual member

Ban against polygamy

Federal government provides computers to public and private, parochial schools

Clergy led prayer at the opening of a high school graduation ceremony

Amish students forced to follow state law of attending school from 14-16 year olds, despite religious beliefs against

Religious clubs banned on public school campuses

6 foot monument of Ten Commandments at a courthouse next to other monuments

Private company fired worker for refusing to



Case Free Exercise or Establishment

Judgment – Is it Constitutional?

Explanation of Judgment

State law that banned the teaching of evolution

Establishment No An Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional, because it was based on “fundamentalist sectarian conviction” and violated the Establishment Clause.

American Indian worker fired for smoking peyote

Free Exercise Yes Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to someone fired from a job for illegally smoking peyote during a religious ceremony. The Free Exercise Clause does not excuse people from obeying the law.

Student religious organization at a public university limited membership to those with similar beliefs and consequently refused to allow a homosexual member

Free Exercise No The court ruled that a student organization at a public university was not free to limit their members to those who shared their belief system if that resulted in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ban against polygamy Free Exercise Yes A federal law banning polygamy was upheld. The Free Exercise Clause forbids government from regulating belief, but does allow government to regulate actions such as marriage.

Federal government provides computers to public and private, parochial schools

Establishment Yes The federal government could provide computer equipment to all schools—public, private, and parochial—under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The aid was religiously neutral and did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Clergy led prayer at the opening of a high school graduation ceremony

Establishment No The court ruled that a student organization at a public university was not free to limit their members to those who shared their belief system if that resulted in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Amish students forced to follow state law of attending school from 14-16 year olds, despite religious beliefs against

Free Exercise No The Court ruled that Amish adolescents could be exempt from a state law requiring school attendance for all 14- to 16-year-olds, since their religion required living apart from the world and worldly influence. The state’s

work on their Sabbath



interest in students’ attending 2 more years of school was not enough to outweigh the individual right to free exercise.

Religious clubs banned on public school campuses

Establishment No The 1990 Equal Access Act, which required that public schools give religious groups the same access to facilities that other extracurricular groups have, was upheld. Allowing religious clubs to meet did not violate the Establishment Clause.

6 foot monument of Ten Commandments at a courthouse next to other monuments

Establishment Yes A 6-foot monument displaying the Ten Commandments donated by a private group and placed with other monuments next to the Texas State Capitol had a secular purpose and would not lead an observer to conclude that the state endorsed the religious message, and therefore did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Private company fired worker for refusing to work on their Sabbath

Free Exercise Yes Private companies are free to fire people who refuse to work on any day they claim is their Sabbath, because the First Amendment applies only to government, not to private employers.



The Religious Liberty Foundation has asked you to submit a brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Elk Grove School District v. Newdow. Your brief should include the following items: • This heading:

In The Supreme Court of the United States Elk Grove School District (Petitioner)

v. Newdow(Respondent) To the Supreme Court of the United States Brief of the Religious Liberty Foundation

In Support of _____________ [respondent or petitioner]

• A position statement of at least three sentences in which you take a stance on this question: Does the reciting the pledge of allegiance, which includes the words “under God,” in school violate a student’s first amendment rights? • Three one-paragraph arguments that support your position statement. Each paragraph should begin with a clear topic sentence and incorporate evidence – facts, examples, or quotations – that support your topic sentence. • A conclusion of at least three sentences in which you restate your position and reiterate your most important points. • A signature line that reads,

Respectfully submitted, ___________________ (your name) Attorney at Law, Religious Liberty Foundation


CVCS-Lesson-Brown.g.docx 3/19/2012 This curriculum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Judicial Council, the AOC, or the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS. Furthermore, the authors, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Court Programs and Services Division/CPAS do not provide any warranties regarding the currency or accuracy of the information in these works. Users are reminded to check the subsequent history of any case and changes to statutes and Rules of Court cited in the works before relying on them. These works are provided for the personal noncommercial use of teachers and may not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of the authors.”

Lesson Plan: Freedom of Religion Outline of Unit Plan: Unit Title: Re-writing the Constitution for the 21st Century – A Year Long Examination of the United States Constitution, its Foundation and Interpretation Over Time.

lesson plan: freedom of religion - california courts · lesson plan: freedom of religion . context...

Documents